Rights are absolute. Period. I have the RIGHT to say what ever I please, without being prosecuted by the goverment. That includes yelling "fire" in a theater. . . . Theoretically I CAN own a nuclear weapon or any other weapon of any kind.
Where does the government of the USA get its powers?
The Constitution. Its powers are declared in same said document. Its limitations are also declared in same said document.
Where do the powers delineated in the Constitution come from???
Answer, the people, by conferring (surrendering) powers.
Powers the people confer are powers they can no longer claim for as long as the Constitution is in force.
When it comes to ordered society there are no absolute rights. Even the most vital rights of liberty and life can be disabled or even extinguished for violating the rules of society following accepted practices of due process. Rights of expression are limited by the rights of others in society; you can not use inciteful speech with the intent of causing panic or calling for violence.
In the case of nuclear weapons, the powers to declare war and raise and support armies are supreme and preemptive. Once those powers are surrendered and granted to the federal government they can not be exercised by two entities. Does anyone claim they have the 1st Amendment right to print their own US currency or negotiate and enter into treaties with foreign nations? The principle of preemptive powers is very well established and in fact, the early cases were militia cases where there were conflicts between the state and federal governments over control of the organized militia.
As we have seen even though we have inalieanable rights that are supposed to be protected . . .
How can government be trusted to be protect something that is considered inalienable?
Speech, religion, assembly, press, and other rights are protected within the Constitution, the fact that they are inalienable are stated by the Declaration of Independence. As I have said before if you wish to limit my right to keep, and bear arms, or any other right for that matter, you must pass an amendment.
My point was that the designation of "inalienable" means that they can't really be entrusted to the care or protection of government. To expect an agent / agency of the government to keep secure that which can't be transferred to the government, is an oxymoron. Government can only "protect" inalienable rights with inaction, by not exceeding the powers granted to it.
As I have said before if you wish to limit my right to keep, and bear arms, or any other right for that matter, you must pass an amendment.
That's not exactly true. Like it or not, a certain scale of "limit" can exist because the government can always argue that a law limiting an action of the citizen (not just arms) serves a compelling governmental or societal interest. Because an illegitimate law can be affirmed is why having a judiciary that keeps its determinations attached to the Constitution is so important.
In order to live with and amongst each other we each give up a bit of that Sovereignty to each other in the form of the Constitution, which forms the framework for our government. To be more precise we loan a bit of our Sovereignty. We do this with every contract we bind ourselves with, loan a bit of Sovereignty to meet whatever ends we are trying to achieve.
You seem to have a general understanding that ours is constitution of conferred (surrendered) powers but you don't seem to follow through and apply the unavoidable
Question. If I say something and no one hears it, and I say something and everyone hears it, besides the fact one is heard and the other is not, what is the difference? How is one DIRECTLY harmed by words?
To keep the discussion in the philosophical, the first instance would be in a state of nature, unencumbered by the rules of society. The second instance occurs within society and your actions must conform with the legitimate concerns for the rights of others. To be a member of society you surrender and relinquish claims to certain interests and actions. You are not a "
Sovereign, an independent country of exactly one" within society, you are on equal footing with every other member and no individual possesses more power that his fellow citizen (assuming that society is based on equal rights and standing). To argue that everyone can act according to his own wishes and desires s arguing for hedonistic anarchy, not ordered society.
In direct answer to your question Willie, the government cannot be trusted, nor should it be. Reagan said it best, "Trust but verify." I do trust my government, to do what is in THEIR interest, which may or may not coincide with mine. It is my responsibility to insure they do not overstep their bounds, as it is yours as well.
I'm not saying we should "trust" government, that's the last thing I'm saying. I'm just saying that there are interests that are no longer within the scope of direct, personal citizen direction and control; that those interests that have been surrendered , no claim can be made to them (for as long as the Constitution is deemed to be honored by that government).